|
|
|
|
|
| Space
Posted: 2/26/2009 3:55:52 PM | I have a question for the more scientifically inclined contributors; if the Big Bang theory primarily deals with the dispersion of matter throughout space, what of space itself? Has it always existed? Is it limitless? Or, if we could travel at, say, the speed of light to the power of 1000 would we eventually come to some barrier???
The idea that there is either limited space, or, alternately, that at some point we would come to somekind of "wall" is rather mind-boggling.
Does science have anyhting to say on the question? | |
|
| Space
Posted: 2/26/2009 7:04:38 PM | jmars: first of all, the Big Bang wasn't just an explosion of matter but a rapid and energetic expansion of matter, space and time. Or, as cosmologists refer to it, spacetime. In fact, the first few nanoseconds of the universe, in which it was roughly the diameter of a basketball, it expanded outward faster than the speed of light - a process known as inflation that imprinted the basic geometry of the universe as "flat." Two parallel lines will be parallel forever.
Okay, I know what you're thinking. How can the universe travel faster than the speed of light. Well, it doesn't actually violate relativity. Only things within the universe are confined to that law. The universe itself is under no such constraint.
Which gets to your other question. You're not going to be able to travel faster than the speed of light under the constraints of relativity. However, if you could, well, no one knows what you would encounter. Perhaps you would encounter another universe which preceded this one. Perhaps you would simply stop and disappear when the laws of physics which you were otherwise governed ceased to exist. | |
|
| Space
Posted: 2/26/2009 10:00:09 PM |
I have a question for the more scientifically inclined contributors; if the Big Bang theory primarily deals with the dispersion of matter throughout space, what of space itself? Has it always existed? Is it limitless?
Within the context of the big bang, space and time began with the big bang. In fact, space and time are not independent of the matter it contains. It also makes no sense to talk about ``before'' the big bang.
Or, if we could travel at, say, the speed of light to the power of 1000 would we eventually come to some barrier???
That doesn't actually make sense. You cannot talk about a velocity without saying to what that velocity is relative. There is no absolute rest frame. Furthermore, you should measure time and distance using the same units, i.e., meters. Then the ``speed of light'' of is 1. At that point, asking if you can exceed a velocity of 1 is like asking if you can have more than 2pi radians in a circle. It doesn't make sense. | |
|
| Space
Posted: 2/27/2009 4:50:06 AM | The other questions have been covered quite nicely...
Is it limitless? Or, if we could travel at, say, the speed of light to the power of 1000 would we eventually come to some barrier???
The idea that there is either limited space, or, alternately, that at some point we would come to somekind of "wall" is rather mind-boggling.
What happens if you travel an arbitrarily large distance depends on if the universe is infinite but bounded, or infinite and unbounded.
If the universe is infinite but bounded then if you travel an arbitrarily large distance you will loop back around and find yourself back where you were. This is like a 2d creature living on a sphere... travel can continue without running into anything, but will end up covering the same ground.
If the universe is infinite and unbounded then you can travel forever in any direction and never reach a barrier.
A "wall" would break the cosmological principal. It would make one area of the universe unique.
"all points in space ought to experience the same physical development, correlated in time in such a way that all points at a certain distance from an observer appear to be at the same stage of development. In that sense, all spatial conditions in the Universe must appear to be homogeneous and isotropic to an observer at all times in the future and in the past." taken from Wikipedia | |
|
| Space
Posted: 2/27/2009 12:23:24 PM | >>>Within the context of the big bang, space and time began with the big bang. In fact, space and time are not independent of the matter it contains. It also makes no sense to talk about ``before'' the big bang.
It makes perfect sense to talk about before the big bang because the law of cause and effect requires that an event or series of events must have started the big bang, and therefore predated the big bang. Stephen hawking talks about the time before the big bang as real time and the time we are experiencing now as imaginary time. | |
|
| Space
Posted: 2/27/2009 10:33:43 PM | I think as best as we currently know space is the dark matter and dark energy that holds the particles that we do know about apart.
Does space have an end? Well, Columbus, you'll know when you sail off the edge of the galaxy. But you'll be greeted by lovely mermaids so it all equals out in the end. | |
|
| Space
Posted: 2/27/2009 11:19:54 PM | Science ends, reason fails us, and God begins at the moment before the
big bang. | |
|
| Space
Posted: 2/28/2009 2:54:04 AM |
Science ends, reason fails us, and God begins at the moment before the
big bang.
Ahh yes ofcourse. We can't explain it, therefore it must be God. Nice touch. | |
|
| Space
Posted: 2/28/2009 9:18:25 AM | ---Ahh yes ofcourse. We can't explain it, therefore it must be God. Nice touch--
Just being pragmatic, and facing reality. There are things we simply dont know, and never will know due to our implicit limitations. Science is an intellectual paradigm for
analyzing and quantifying the natural universe, therfore it is logical that it cannot
quantify what it cannot ever percieve, namely that which preceded the matter, energy
and natural physical laws of the Universe. Logically, the big bang or creation didnt occur within the framework of time and space, it created space time and all matter
and energy. Since our perception operates on and within a frame work of spacetime and matter and energy, how can it percieve or intuitively infer anything about that which doesnt exist?
What preceded the creation of known reality is a state that is pure mystery, or for the want of a better word, God. Sometimes you just have be humble. | |
|
| Space
Posted: 2/28/2009 11:12:18 AM | | Our perception changes as our understanding grows and for those of you who still want to have faith, God is only going to rest in that ever shrinking margin between knowledge and the unknown. It's placing "God" in the irreducable... But I guess those that 'believe' have to cling to something. | |
|
| Space
Posted: 3/4/2009 10:51:56 PM | Those who truly believe in the divine don't need to "cling to" anything ... we just appreciate things like, love for instance, poetically rather than scientifically. And just between you and me, a scientist, speaking strictly as a scientist, is the last person I'd ask for love advice from. But I guess I'm just benighted that way. lol
Thank everyone who explained why faster than light travel is impossible. I already know why, and it was really entirely beside the point, but the demonstrated effort is sincerely appreciated.
REgarding the idea that the Big Bang was, theoretically, a rapid expansion of matter, time AND space ... I don't get that. If there was no space, no void, no empty nothingness, then what exactly did it all *expand* INTO? The idea that there was mere abscence outside of this basketball-size clump of all potential seems ... artificial, contrived, which I suppose things are bound to seem like on the quantum level and when dealing with mathematical abstractions, but still, it's a contradiction. | |
|
| Space
Posted: 3/4/2009 10:56:59 PM | Space: The final frontier
These are the voyages of the Starship, Enterprise
Its 5 year mission
To explore strange new worlds
To seek out new life and new civilizations
To boldly go where no man has gone before - WooooOOO wooOooo
I just couldn't help myself. | |
|
| Space
Posted: 3/4/2009 11:03:35 PM | | That Wall you refer to... wouldn't be a wall of force, but rather, a wall of NOTHING... and by Nothing, I truly mean... nothing.... Not even matter-less gravitons or dark matter.. it would just be VOID. | |
|
| Space
Posted: 3/5/2009 1:57:29 AM | | My understanding is that the big bang is the beginning of spacetime (in other words, the entire universe, including space and time) and everything in it. What existed 'before' is possibly a meaningless question. There are some theories though by cosmologists which seem reasonably plausible which suggest the universe emerges from nothing but according to natural laws. | |
|
| Space
Posted: 3/5/2009 3:09:16 AM | To JMars and anyone else who feels his question, consider the following analogy.
Picture a PERFECTLY still lake. No wind, no currents, no animals, just water at complete rest.
The surface of this lake represents the so-called void, or space or whatever that you are visualising was present before the big bang.
Then picture a large object dropping into the lake with a big splash, and ripples going out everywhere, different directions, some combining in some areas and neutralising in others, dissipating (maybe) as it goes out but never vanishing.
The force of this extra-dimensional impact upon the still surface represents the big bang. A cataclysmic event in the midst of total tranquility, caused by the introduction of something outside its' plane of existence. All the ripple effects on the surface represent the
procession of time, matter, energy, forces (im not so sure about space, personally i dont see the diff b/t space and void, but in either case) throughout the universe.
Now if this analogy were accurate, the question I'd be asking is not how large the lake is but where did that freakin object come from, and how would we find out...
I'm sure many would also say it is not true because it can't be proven... questions are endless, I'll let yall continue. | |
|
| Space
Posted: 3/5/2009 8:01:19 AM |
I have a question for the more scientifically inclined contributors; if the Big Bang theory primarily deals with the dispersion of matter throughout space, what of space itself? Has it always existed? Is it limitless? Or, if we could travel at, say, the speed of light to the power of 1000 would we eventually come to some barrier???
For me the question is in the realms of nescience – I mean that only material phenomena in our immediate physical surrounds can be known and calculated and knowledge of deep space matters or ultimate causes of the infinite is impossible for a mere human at this plains level of existence to know of, thus falling into the spiritual realm of philosophical thought.
The problem is ineffable, beyond expression in words, indescribable, inexpressible, for minds at our present level of enlightenment. Calculating such things is not possible with any degree of accuracy or even certainty. You might as well ask GOD.
 | |
|
| Space
Posted: 3/5/2009 8:08:36 AM | Big bang was a big fart and it smells so bad that the stink is currently spreading throughout the Universe. Space and time combined, encapsulate the smell in small packages called atoms.
In other words, one bs theory as good as any other in my opinion. | |
|
| Space
Posted: 3/5/2009 2:52:35 PM | star gazer summed much up ( in a very short space most astutely) coming form a membrane and vsl proponent
I have nowt else to add in less than 1 page | |
|
| Space
Posted: 3/5/2009 8:11:30 PM |
Big bang was a big fart
hmmm....quite possibly, but i'd like to know who actually ripped it out.....it had to be the mother of all farts!
 | |
|
| Space
Posted: 5/27/2009 6:12:13 PM | | Is there an invisible wall out there a trillion light years away? Probably not. This is where faith mixes with science. You can't prove it either way. You just have to pick one and go with it. | |
|
| Space
Posted: 5/27/2009 6:55:01 PM | The space that the universe sits in, has always been there, to my understanding. The actual "space" is a void, there is nothing there. So the big bang has nothing to do with creating space. The big bang deals with the creation of the universe. The primary starting point for everything contained in our universe. That does not include time. The reason is, is because time is a natural function of the universe. We measure time, and even if nobody is around to measure it, it still happens. That, and in order for a big bang to happen, something must have happened to lead to it's event. So, that would suggest that time happens, and has nothing to do with the big bang. That's my understanding.
From what I understand, there is no "wall". What is meant, is there is an end to the universe, so in other words, our universe is finite. This would be true if the Big Bang theory is correct.
mind=blown | |
|
| Space
Posted: 5/27/2009 7:01:30 PM | jmars, with regards to your question about what the universe is "expanding into," well, no one really knows. there are numbers of different explanations, all as likely as the other. However, astronomers just don't know.
Is the Big Bang a one-time event or one of many that have occurred? Is our universe simply one of many that have occurred throughout an overlying "hyperspace."
Oh, and don't forget, concepts like "before and after" fall by the wayside at the quantum level in which our universe occupied in the very smallest fractions of a second after the big bang. In short, everything about it is counterintuitive. But fun to think about. | |
|
| Space
Posted: 5/27/2009 7:50:35 PM |
Does science have anyhting to say on the question?
A while back I read "A Brief History of Time" by Mr. Hawking in which he outlined some possible "shapes" of the universe. The universe can be bound, but infinite just like the sum of (1 + 0.5 + 0.25 + 0.125 ... + 1/2^n) where n >= 0.... for we know that summation process is infinite but it's total never exceeds 2.
Another possibility is that the universe is finite and bound... like Earth, except inconceivably lager. I think this view isn't that popular nowadays.
I believe he also mentioned that the universe can be unbound but finite... like the circumference of a perfect circle... technically speaking you can never unroll (or stretch into a straight line) the circumference... for PI is an infinite number, but yet the ends of a circle "tough" nonetheless and even though the circumference is infinite you can comprehend it... the mind can grasp it.
And I think the last possibility was that the universe is unbound and infinite... which I believe is the most popular view.
Those are, as far as I'm aware, the possible scientific/mathematical views of the universe.
My own personal view is that we don't have a proper concept that yet captures the nature of the universe... certainly not in the sciences. A lot of philosophers have pointed out that "finite" and "infinite" are terms much like "black" and "white"... each defined in terms of the other... and thus don't really apply to the universe... for they are relative to one another, so if one asks, "Well, what's 'finite' just by itself without referring to infinite?" we are stuck... we can't really answer that question.
Same thing applies to "bound" and "unbound". If I had to guess I'd say the universe is neither bound, and neither unbound... it simply IS and cannot be contrasted against something else for it simply IS, and it cannot be explained in terms of something else for the very same reason... it simply IS. And no concept will ever be sufficient enough to capture it, for all concepts are relative to the human mind and all relative concepts always have at least two entities (or parts) present in them, but the universe is "One".
Think about it...even "Space" is a relative term.
Side note: I think it was Alan Watts, I may be mistaken here, who said the universe is "No-thing"... a "Void" so to speak, but even those terms are relative so you have to go beyond them. | |
|
| Space
Posted: 5/27/2009 8:04:37 PM | Topics like "The Big Bang", "Black Holes", etc. all require a high degree of knowledge about relativistic physics and quantum mechanics. And these fields generally deal with things that can be quite counter-intuitive. (For example, if you don't understand the concepts of "Time Dilation" and "Space Contraction.", then you will probably have difficulty understanding why two spaceships, one moving to the left at 90% the speed of light and the other moving to the right at 90% the speed of light, are NOT moving faster than the speed of light relative to each other.)
Asking a lay person to discuss his "opinions" about something like the Big Bang is like asking a truck driver to discuss his "opinions" about the best ocological treatments for breast cancer. | |
|
| Space
Posted: 5/27/2009 9:08:08 PM | Science is an intellectual paradigm for
analyzing and quantifying the natural universe, therfore it is logical that it cannot
quantify what it cannot ever percieve, namely that which preceded...
Already you have made an assumption that a "before" existed...It didn't.
The traditional way of explaining the unknown is to invoke "God" as the final explanation, but that is based on the assumption that we "know" God exists. Why does God exist?...So we can explain what we don't know in terms we can (sort of) understand.
We have built a world-view based on assumptions that we "know" (that effect needs a cause, that "time" always "moves" only in one direction, that "simultaneous" events objectively happen at the same "time" everywhere, etc., etc.). Relativity & quantum mechanics challenge many of our assumptions with observations that show some of them to be false, so we can't really rely on what we "know" the universe to be like, even though it makes things more comfortable for us to do so.
Why can't we accept that there was no "before" the big bang?...Because in our erroneous worldview, we can't picture time not existing. We assume that time always existed and therefore that there was a "before". We can't picture absolutely nothing, nor can we believe that an entire universe, complete with matter, space & time could simply spring into being without some "first cause" to explain it...hence "God" had to exist before the big bang.
The existence of God is simply a hypothesis that "makes sense" to our limited world-view. Once God is invoked, the natural question is "Where did God come from; who created God", to which we usually reply "God always was; God was not created, He was just "there." If that's the case, and you can accept that as the "final answer", why not take one step back and say "The universe was not created, it was just "always there." It means the universe goes back to the beginning of time. It doesn't have to mean that time had no "beginning."
For some reason, many are not comfortable with that and insist on making that extra step before they can abandon their sacred assumptions about the nature of the universe, of space, time and matter. Believe me, I know it's hard not to think in "classical" terms in a relativistic, quantum universe. I do it as much as the next guy and often have to be corrected. The best that I can do is try to understand that I don't really understand and that some of my own "sacred cows" are gonna have to be sacrificed on the altar of knowledge if I'm to have any hope at all of seeing beyond my limited worldview. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
